User talk:Scourgeofgod

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages as you did to

do indian name their weapons on Hindu gods and goddess?Yousaf465

Hi, can you add the Telugu script at

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abdus salaam desecrated grave.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia–Wikimedia Meetup
Kolkata, India

(view · edit · changes)

Hi Scourgeofgod, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions . We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

Hi, and thank you for

Hello Scourgeofgod, First of all take heartiest greetings from Bengali Wikipedia Community.

In order to celebrate it's 10 year Bengali Wikipedia has arranged a photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. It is scheduled to, start at 1 September 2014 00:00 (UTC) and end at 31 October 2014 00:00 (UTC). We welcome you participate there. Hoping to see you at the contest . Thanks.

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Pratyya Ghosh (talk · contribs) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Swami Aseemanand were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scourgeofgod, I have alerted you about ARBIPA sanctions a couple of days ago. I think you need to read and follow Wikipedia policies. I am also getting troubled by your increasing tendency to cast

• The deletion of TOI citation itself shows bias. [1]
• Undid malicious removal of primary citations by user Kautilya3 [2].
• undid malicious edits of user kautilya deleting the primary citations [3].
• Raising a NPOV dispute due to the malicious deletions of primary citations of legitimate opposing POV by user Kautilya3 [4].
• I think this malicious deletion of primary citations from the apparently unpalatable opposing POV is clear bias on part of user. yet the user Kautilya3 is maliciously scrubbing an encyclopediac article of all opposing POV sources [5]

You need to STOP doing this asap. Please discuss the content, not the editors. And justify your positions by referring to Wikipedia policies, not your personal opinions about what is going on. If you do this kind of thing again, I will report you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So if i some one points out your recurrent silent scrubbing of opposing POV duly sourced from primary sources you label them as "casting aspersions"? First you must provide me an explanation on why you are deleting the primary citations added by me without giving an explanation yourself.The burden of proof is on you not me as the citations ive added are directly related to the case & the personality.As you are the one who started deleting duly sourced material backed by primary sources not some webportals of ultra-leftist magazines(with less than 40,000 circulation in a country of 1.2 Billion people) like Caravan or some clickbait online newsaggregators like Breakingnewsonline.net^[1] & claiming only your sources to be "reliable".You are free to report whatever but this recurrent vandalism by deleting primary sources will be definitely highlighted by me. Scourgeofgod (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All edits are subject to review. When they are reverted, you are expected to discuss the issues and arrive at a consensus. You should not demonise the editors in the process.

As to the sources you have supposedly provided, they do not state that the confession was extracted under duress. They only state that Aseemand claimed that it was obtained under duress. That is a big difference.

Since you are not understanding any of this, I would like to invite admins RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 to advise you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try this one more time.The individual refuting the "confession" is not some third person.Rather he is the same individual to whom the "confession" was originally attributed to.So when he claims that the confession was extracted under duress when he was under confinement his claim as it stands in the open court has primacy over any other's claim on admissibility of the "confession".Hence the intutive principle of natural justice that no person can be forced to testify against himself.The Judge by denying the admissibility of the "confession" and granting bail to the under-trial(Aseemanand) has only upheld this time honored principle of general jurisprudence.So when you claim that Aseemanand's statement in open court - that his "confession" has been extracted under duress doesn't matter you are twisting the matter into some thing which it is not.It is not A's claims on validity of B's statement where you can attribute bias to A and deny his claim.This is a case where A's claim that his own (i.e A's) statement has been extracted under coercion & his right to declare in open court that he does not standby the "confession" signed by him.His claim in this case is legally recognized & cannot be dismissed by any hand-waving arguments that A's claim doesn't matter once he had signed off his "confession" during his time of confinement.Henceforth in this case there is no objective legally established fact of "confession" but only a subjective legally disputed fact of "confession" and which has to be always qualified by the accused claim that it has been extracted from him via coercion.Hence the wording "Aseemanand confessed to ..." is quite improper & i qualified his confession by wording it as "Aseemanand confessed self admittedly under duress to...".For some reason you did't like my simple edit.And started reverting my qualification repeatedly while each time deleting my primary & reliably sourced citations from syndicated national print dailies of India^[2](except Siasat - which actually happens to be an Indian Muslim led news portal hosting opinion & syndicated news stories) and yet(on a Hindu-Muslim issue) frankly acknowledged that the prosecuting agency's(NIA) case has fallen apart as it was mostly based on the "confession" of the accused)).I would like to invite Strike_Eagle also into the conversation.Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of attributing bias - i clearly perceived bias as my simple edit rooted in clear fact was repeatedly reverted with little explanation and worse my reliably sourced citations for even an preexisting line in the article("Aseemanand stated that he had been pressurised by the investigating agencies to confess that he was behind these blasts.") were deleted again and again.And i perceived it to be done with mal-intent.If the admins wish to strikeoff my statements attributing bias,i wont protest as its my personal opinion and i cannot impose it on everyone. Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Scourgeofgod. I haven't reviewed the edits in detail yet, but regardless of circumstance, edit summaries such as the ones above should be avoided. Not only is this an issue of casting aspersions, but also of basic civility. Now you might legitimately take issue with Kautilya's edits, but odds are that this is due to a different understanding, or different interpretation, of NPOV and the source material, than of any actual malice. Therefore, go to the talk page (which you have done; good!) and sort the matter out in a civil manner. Furthermore, Kautilya is correct in saying that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources: more specifically, we certainly cannot present disputed information in Wikipedia's voice unless it is stated explicitly by a reliable source. A judge's opinion, or the opinion of anybody else for that matter, does not constitute a reliable source, and cannot be used as the basis of our articles. And before you say that news articles or scholarly sources are also "opinions," those sources are subject to editorial review, which is why they are considered reliable. I hope this helps. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• None of those edit summaries are acceptable. Discuss content, use reliable sources, seek a
  WP:3O or broader dispute resolution, but do not cast POV aspersions. I'm not going to formally sanction you but will do so if you continue to defend those edit summaries or continue to accuse other editors of POV biases. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aimal Kansi.jpg

Thanks for uploading